Where should one place, on the common-usage political left/right spectrum, a party that has a strong environmental platform (supports Greenpeace, opposes whaling and even the docking of dog’s tails), opposes any privatization of medical services or public sector institutions, supports the nationalization of important economic assets, calls for higher taxes on the rich, and sees its support coming primarily from members of the working class?
Why, the far right, of course. British blogger Simon Richards takes issue with this sleight of hand:
I lost track of the number of times the British National Socialist Party was referred to by BB journalits as ‘the right wing BNP’ on last night’s woeful Euro-election programme. The BBC has a track record on this. Whenever possible, it refers to groups it doesn’t like as ‘conservative’ or right-wing. It did this in the case of hard-line Communists in the Gorbachev era, who, in BBC-land, were always ‘conservatives’.
Many on the left will argue that being a racist makes you socially right – funny how that works – and that the BNP, despite their openly socialist policies, are on the opposite end of the spectrum from the left, over on the far, far right, alongside the National Socialist German Workers Party. This ongoing claim to the word “socialist” by parties whom the left insists on deeming the “far-right” remains a sticking/sore point: British blogger the Englishman noted “the perplex on BBC’s talking faces as ‘Far Right’ Andrew Brons’ extremist past was revealed to be founded on his membership of the National Socialist Movement.”
Let’s just call the BNP what they are: racist, authoritarian leftists. Anyone who would argue that the left cannot, by definition, be authoritarian, and that the term only applies to the right, must have slept through the last century.
“Once, it was easy for the Nazis to distinguish the lesser races from the Aryan. They built up a whole pseudo-science on how to tell if someone qualified as superior or inferior. This required the definition of “Aryan” to be extended to include Japanese, but still exclude Chinese or Koreans or others in the general area. Much hilarity ensued.”
Excellent, excellent point! Do you think such an analysis will be mentioned in any MSM editorial any time soon?
I don’t believe that the definition of “Aryan” even “included Japanese” (that would be ludicrous, and like all mad people, the Nazis practiced a rigorous internal logic), but the Reich was certainly practical at times and it’s alliance with Japan was simply that. The Japanese are perhaps the most racially exclusive people on earth – are now, and were then. There are people of Korean extraction who have lived in Japan for generations, often contributing to society at a very high level, but they are denied Japanese citizenship, purely on racial grounds.
Hitler was never concerned that the Japanese wanted to mix with “Aryans”, and vice versa; the two cultures understood each other very well, in that respect. I’m not saying the Japanese were the moral equivalents of the Nazis; but they seem to have gone through a sort of meltdown mid-century, and their atrocities towards the Chinese were… ask the Chinese.
BTW I have always been very interested (in my odd way) in the Nazi’s official attitude towards the Slavs, which I have never seen properly defined. If anyone knows any useful books or articles on the subject I’d be very obliged.
uh huh, while your statement would make sense as a surface reading of the left in the early 20th Century, it misses the entire multicultural phenomenon that has overtaken the wing, as well as a very important historical phenomenon. Namely that, for the left, economics is genetic. This was evident in Stalinist Russia, where children and relatives of a kulack, or a priest, or anyone who could be described as capitalist, were always under suspicion. It was true in Cambodia, it was true in China. If you descended from money, that class stuck with you.
On the international arena, it’s the same thing. If you come from a people that the left deems to have been victimized, or to have been oppressors, it does not matter what class you, yourself, currently reside. You are pigeonholed into the class your ancestors came from. It’s basically a caste system on a global scale, and almost all of the lines break around ethnic boundaries, as they’re the easiest to keep track of. The racism in the left is not, shall we say, a matter of maliciousness, but a matter of lazy bookkeeping.
EBD asks…
“Would a party who believes in increased taxation of the rich, opposes private medical care and the privatization of crown corporations, and gets most of their support from unions and the working class be considered right, or left?”
You are confusing politics and economics.
A hypernationalist who believes in “increased taxation of the rich, opposes private medical care and privatization of corporations, and gets most of their support from unions and the working class” in the name of “the glory of the nation” or “glory of the fatherland”, is right wing.
A one-world utopian (for lack of a better term) who who believes in “increased taxation of the rich, opposes private medical care and privatization of corporations, and gets most of their support from unions and the working class” in the name of “working classes” or humanity, or united people of the world or whatever, is left wing.
The Nazis controlled the economy for the betterment of the German, and only German, people. The Communists did it with the view of benefiting people around the world. This is a huge difference. The Nazi hypernationalist/overpatriotic framework allowed for the massacre of the impure, ie non-German/Aryan peoples. Latent human racist tendencies apart, the Communists tended to view all races, but not classes, as equal.
Of course, you try to fudge the distinction by passing off the economic spectrum as the political spectrum. These are two separate spectrums, and it is possible to fall on different ends of the economic and political spectrums at the same time. Most Multinational Corp CEOs would prefer a one-world scenario with easy labor mobility (ie – loose immigration rules), which would qualify them as politically left wing, insofar as they don’t give a damn about the ‘nation’ and its ‘values’. At the same time, they want free markets, which are right wing.
Lets be a little discerning in how we use terms. For clarity’s sake.
Am I wrong when I say that the Nazi’s were deemed “right wing” due to the animosity created by Stalin himself just so he could differentiate his country against the Germans? Very similar to how the left here in Canada paint the Conservatives.
The very extreme right would constitute anarchy, not authoritarianism. Anyone can be racist but your political stripe depends on your political ideologies regarding government involvement.
In my opinion, if a party is pro-multiculturalism and not one of pro-melting pot, they have a sick and twisted agenda of keeping races pitted against each other which is racist.
To finish, I am proud of my heritage since it is the only one I have, but too feel that I am any better than someone else based on that heritage is just naive.
It’s time that political parties in this country start stressing the abolition of hyphens.
“The racism in the left is not, shall we say, a matter of maliciousness, but a matter of lazy bookkeeping.”
Ah I see what you are getting at. I don’t necessarily think its true. The Left you are talking about is mostly the ‘left’ in western DEMOCRATIC countries. They give into the vagaries of electoral politics by choosing to engage in identity politics. And yes, that is racist, but, as you note, not in a malicious way. When we refer to racism, we generally tend to think of maliciousness targeted at specific races. Right wng xenophobes are more prone towards killing people on the basis of race. Left wingers are more willing to kill people on the basis of money and power.
That said, I am not sure what point you are making about the Soviets Chinese etc with regard to historical phenomenon, becuase Socialism and COmmunism are, for better or worse, the products of western thought propagated by western human beings schooled in western ways. Marx was not Chinese. I don’t think he knew much about Cambodia either.
The point I am making is that combining the political and economic definitions of left and right is wrong. The Nazis ARE rightwing because they were hypernationalist xenophobes. They had a very clear view of the German nation – one that was devoid of other impure groups. Socialism is one-world ism – Communist International, and all that interracial love between the Soviets, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Angolans etc.
“Am I wrong when I say that the Nazi’s were deemed “right wing” due to the animosity created by Stalin himself just so he could differentiate his country against the Germans? Very similar to how the left here in Canada paint the Conservatives.”
Yes you are. Stalin was communist left winger because he was dissolving nations into a larger union. He was not doing it to benefit the ‘Russian’ people – he himself was Georgian. Stalin aimed to unite disparate nations- that is what communism ideology is about. Uniting the world. Nations are seen as capitalsit mechanisms aimed at controlling the working clasees.
Hitler, on the other hand, was uninterested in creating a German supersate composed of multiple, ostensibly equal, ethncities. He hated Slavs, for instance. In the German state, Germany and the German people – the Aryan race and all that – were to benefit from the resources and wealth of the inferior groups surrounding them. There was no notion of the kind of equality that a Georgian or Kazakh could count on in Soviet Russia. Thats what makes Nazi Germany right wing. Hypernationalism and xenophobia.
“The very extreme right would constitute anarchy, not authoritarianism”
Wrong again. Economic right wing would constitute anarchy – free market and no government. Political right wing ideology needs a defined nation. One group that is superior to others for whatever reason. Political right wing-ism is “my country is right- always”. If we use your logic, we come up with bizzare situations where left wingers want to smoke drugs, while right wingers, who are ‘anarchists’, don’t want to allow it. An economic right winger would support anarchy. A political right winger would not.
And for what its worth, read the works of Peter Kropotkin at some point. He is a communist anarchist. By your definition, he falls on both sides of the spectrum at once.
“Anyone can be racist but your political stripe depends on your political ideologies regarding government involvement.”
Absolutely. But you still have to distinguish between political/social spectrums, and economic spectrums.
Indiana Homez: “So how did we get here? By always focusing on #1, never giving the collective a second thought.JMO”
‘Good observation, Indiana. Fiscal conservatives who eschew social conservatism — which believes in the autonomy of the individual but, also, that we are called to care for the least amongst us — are, IMHO, the problem. The only “collective” that works is the non-coercive one, the kind where individuals choose to become part of a group (usually involving faith — aka, a church) in order to “love their neighbour as theirself.”
In every society where individuals have been free to worship the God/gods of their choice — that would be in our Western democracies — we observe individuals voluntarily helping one another without relying on government intervention, aka government coercion of individuals into collectives. No wonder socialists always regard Christians and their churches with such loathing.
Government handouts enslave individuals who simply become cogs in the wheel of the socialists’ Utopian totalitarianism. Government handouts — President Regan’s “bounties, donations and benefits” — result in coercive do-goodery for which we all pay, and pay, and pay and for which individuals who object to the ever-increasing encroachment of this kind of socialist thuggery are severely punished.
After almost 40 years of mostly Liberal “rule,” Canadians were well down the road of this particular kind of bondage when the CPC formed the government in 2006. God forbid that the LPC gets back into power anytime soon, because they’ll happily pave the way to “bigger and better” collectives, no doubt with Mo Strong heading the welcome committee.
uh huh – my use of the term ‘racist’ was descriptivel sloppy. I meant only that the left, which I will continue to claim is ‘racist’ lumps people into identifiable groups and then slots them into hierarchies of ‘rights’.
So, to the left, the wealthy, the white, the Christians, all defined as collectives, are to be reduced in power.
I disagree with your differentiation of economic and political levels; they use the same criteria in a similar structure.
I also disagree with your definition of ‘the right’, politically, as nationalistic, while the ‘left’ is non-nationalistic. Both the nationalists and the internationalists are ‘left’, for both focus on a collective identity.
Therefore, I don’t agree with your definition of right (nationalists) and left (global). The only difference between these two is the nature of the identity of their collective.
“Right’, to me, as a definition, focuses on the freedoms of the individual, and the governance in such a society is there to enable such freedom – a freedom that exists when it does not infringe on others.
No such thing, in my view, as a ‘communist anarchist’.
I also don’t agree that an economic ‘right’ would support anarchy. Supporting the free market and no government isn’t an option because that would reduce the economy to ‘might makes right’. No human being, ever, has lived like this or even, if they thought for longer than one minute, would want such a situation.
So, Nazi Germany was left, not right. All collective ideologies, because they focus on the collective, are left wing. Your attempt to change this to ‘well, if the collective is nationalistic, then it’s right’…sorry, I don’t agree with that. I think that’s a specious definition.
The real difference is that focus on the collective versus the individual. And no society has no government.
I remember with great clarity an epiphany I once had when I was still a raging young socialist. It occurred to me that the extreme left and the extreme right were actually on the same spot in a circle of political ideology. They just had their backs to one another, neither speaking to nor engaging the other. I still think that pretty much sums it up. Thus began my flight away from the left.
The old ‘left’ versus ‘right’ debate is always fun but entirely unproductive. Like a human being human society walks on two feet. Sometimes the left foot is ahead and sometimes the right foot is ahead.
What the old left/right debate always loses is sight of the “Culture of Life” versus the “Culture of Death” war.
The Culture of Death inevitably starts from mankind’s attempt to improve himself from internal directives while the culture of life is an attempt to improve from an External Directives.
Internal directives are humanist ideas based on the temporary situation. This occurred during medieval Europe under the Roman Catholic Church and even during the enlightenment under Protestant and Catholic auspices. The internal directive is endemic in Islam and thus the kinship between Islam and the ‘progressive west’.
External directives are found in eternal wisdom and the realization that utopia is unattainable. Since there is no utopia eternal directive people recognize that there is a Power beyond our humanity. Humanity’s task is to seek that Power’s wisdom by reflecting on the Power and scouring ancient documents gathering gems from the Power that can guide modern society as it navigates treacherous waters.
“…I disagree, Dare. I think that Beck, Binswanger, and the other chap made it clear that they are all fear-mongers. …”
I disagree Vit.
In February 1988, I showed those who held superior rank that there was a danger of “small groups of dedicated individuals being capable of wreaking damage. They were skeptical. Even after I proved it. (good thing it’s called an “exercise”. Taxpayers would have been on the hook for a new defense facility.) They didn’t understand “Act like your enemy. Think like your enemy. “Be” your enemy and you will know how to defeat him.” (M-102, C-102, R-01 Callsign: Frogman, Rebuke 😉 )
I was scoffed at and ridiculed for the most part.
On Sept 11 2001. I could only hang my head.
Beck et al are saying the things that need to be said until it sinks in that we are in trouble now and need to get off our fat asses now.
Fear-mongering is what CBC and other poor excuses for “journalism” do in order to move the agenda.
CBC, et al are like the Jim Jones cult aides that made the vats of kool-aid and then helped hand it out.
Then they will get “cannibal” when there is no one left to wallow in their mud puddle. Not too bright, huh? What happened to the “self-sustaining” school of “thought”???
Dave in Pa (1:17 am), you wrote “I especially look forward to reading something from you detailing why their stated party policies are racist.”
What can I say? They are clearly a racist party, if you’ve been following. The “stated” party policies you mention are just a front, thrust forward to occlude what’s in the party’s actual constitution.
The Financial Times, two days ago: “The British National party’s “whites-only” membership policy would be made illegal under new equality legislation being pushed through parliament, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader and equality minister, said on Thursday..”.
The London Evening Standard: “Under the BNP’s constitution, membership is “strictly defined” as “indigenous Caucasian”.
The Herald (UK): “(Commons leader Harriet Harman) told MPs: ‘We have all been shocked and horrified by the fact that two regions of this country, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, are represented by the British National Party, a party who have in their constitution a provision that you cannot be a member of that party if you are not white.'”
The Telegraph: “The BNP has been accused of racism because of its whites-only membership policy.”
Sorry, Dave, but the frilly dress they put on for their trip to the Election Ball doesn’t hide the true nature of the party.
Illiquid Assets (2:03): thanks for daring to go out on an — apparent — limb with me.
Of course, for others, including the British and Canadian media, the BNP, who have those listed policies, remain “far-right”…’cause those listed policies of the BNP are *just* economics, eh?
/:>*>
It’s racism , the magic soup-stone of politics — plus the fact that they’re authoritarian, which of course no Communist/leftist nation could ever be — that puts them on the right. Somehow.
think about the left and right. one side of the wheel goes the bottom as far it can and the other side goes to the bottom also. the bottom would be dictatorship.
Joe, 11:36: “The old ‘left’ versus ‘right’ debate is always fun but entirely unproductive.”
Agreed — or at least, it’s entirely unproductive. The issue in this case, and the point of the post, is that the media, from corner-to-corner, and without debate, have labelled the BNP as being “far-right,” which is — more than debatably — inaccurate in light of the BNP’s undeniably leftist economic policies.
The conservative/right side, as other cogent posters have noted, has lost control of the language used to describe them. At this point “right-wing” suffices as stand-alone slur in a way that socialist/left — “progressive” — is simply not. Through the preponderance of common usage “right” has become a self-evident, stand-alone slur that requires no further explanation or justification, since it already carries with it a suggestion of bible-thumping, parochial, gun-toting quasi-fascist/racists.
And now the BNP, a vile racist group with clearly socialist economic policies, has been handed off to the “right.”
The conservative “right,” whose belief in equality of opportunity is, IMO, the antithesis of racism, now has one more undeserved and even more vigorous pejorative association/connotation attached to it through endless repetition in the press’ coverage of the BNP.
Uh huh, when I referred to China and Cambodia, I was referring to the history of Communism in those lands, to show explain that it was not simply a Russian variant of Communism that turns class into an inherited, and not simply an economic, status.
The strange, if understandable, thing about the distinction of right and left politics that you draw is that the philosophy that is necessary for it did not exist at the time the left-right axis became a political fixture. The original leftists, the Montagnards, were not one-world internationalists. In fact, the nationalism of the left in 18th and early 19th Century France went far beyond whatever nationalism the right, composed of the supporters of the ancien regime, could muster. It’s what made Napoleon so devastating, as he could utilize a sense of nationalism that simply did not exist before to mobilize an entire people to war.
I recognize that one-world internationalism does fall on the far left of the spectrum, which thus must mean that the-world-can-go-jump-off-a-bridge nationalism is far right. However, those are not the defining features of the left-right axis. Hitler would have been most welcome on the left of the French assembly.
oops
I’m a little embarrassed, I just re-read my comment and said this: “even if *their* stacked with stars.”
*They’re*, it’s fixed!
Their-they’re, it’s okay, these things happen to everyone at some point.
This debate on terminology and left/right is always entertaining, but largely moot. The MSM and the left, (often the same thing) have placed many parties and persons on the ‘Right’ that have no business being there.
Worse, these incorrect descriptions that are thrown about in the media are now considered common knowledge, easily accepted, swallowed whole and without reflection by the public at large.
Traditionally right wing and individualist persons have been effectively labeled and thus often muzzled – and the terms have stuck.
Should we blame the left for continuing with this verbal charade? Of course. But in true Conservative fashion, I cannot just cry about what the others are doing and demand government step in and stop these horrible meanies. *Sniff* *Sob*
We on the right need to fight back, demand clarification. We share the blame for allowing ourselves to be labeled.
“The MSM and the left, (often the same thing) have placed many parties and persons on the ‘Right’ that have no business being there.”
Yes, but that’s precisely why the debate about terminology is not moot. It’s clear that the MSM and the left don’t consider the point they are making when they refer to the BNP as “far-right” to be moot.
I once read somewhere that even Trotsky, who today would be considered of the far left, was considered by Stalin to be right wing. Not sure where I read that, so I did a google search(Stalin trotsky right wing) and found several excellent papers on the subject.
Jeff K: “We on the right need to fight back, demand clarification. We share the blame for allowing ourselves to be labeled.”
Precisely. No more being surrender monkeys: Push back and push back often.
We should never allow others to define either us or our politics according to what works for them — and if it means making a regular nuisance of ourselves, then so be it.
Canadian conservatives are way too docile, partly, I think, because they’re not exactly sure what they stand for — just what they know they don’t like. Canadian conservatives need to re-acquaint themselves with our history; they need to understand why our way of doing things — as opposed to socialism — is, in fact, better: more just, more sane, more effective, more productive.
‘So what if the lefties don’t like us? That’s a badge of honour. Let’s take back the playing field.
“I meant only that the left, which I will continue to claim is ‘racist’ lumps people into identifiable groups and then slots them into hierarchies of ‘rights’.”
You are just rehashing the old argument that multiculturalism is inherently racist because it forces a collective identity onto a group. However, this criticism fails to acknowledge the possibility of the collective identity existing before the multiculturalist imposes it on a group. It’s a valid argument, but not a truthful one. The truth lies somewhere in between.
“So, to the left, the wealthy, the white, the Christians, all defined as collectives, are to be reduced in power.”
In the world, everyone is defined in nationalist terms. Your ultimate identity inevitably involves the nation in which you reside in. In most cases, you cannot choose where you were born. The way you try to impose the economic spectrum on the political spectrum is questionable, even dishonest. You argue that left wingers are collectivist. That is the economic definition. Therefore, you argue, nationalists are leftist because they focus on a collective national identity. A remarkable piece of obfuscation on your part, because what you effectively do is create a world of distinct nation states which, by virtue of having collective national identities, are inherently leftist. The consequence of this poorly thought out argument is that every political party in every nation state is leftist because it acknowledges the collective identity of that nation. After all, the government or state of any nation derives its legitimacy from the nation and national identity. The American flag, then, becomes a leftist symbol because it reflects a collective national identity. The Republican Party, which argues that America is always right is left wing because it sees the world in terms of ‘Americans’ (a collective identity) and ‘non-Americans’ (also a collective identity). The list goes on and on because the basic assumption on your part is that collectivists are left wing, and the entire planet works on the basis of nation states, so all political parties are left wing. That is a novel argument. It is almost patently absurd, but I am sure you can conjure up an explanation.
“I disagree with your differentiation of economic and political levels; they use the same criteria in a similar structure.”
Really? Not so long ago you agreed with me on precisely this statement. How your views have evolved over a couple of months. It’s a pity I don’t remember the name I used. I come here on occasion, and I don’t keep track of the names I use.
“I also disagree with your definition of ‘the right’, politically, as nationalistic, while the ‘left’ is non-nationalistic. Both the nationalists and the internationalists are ‘left’, for both focus on a collective identity.”
Excellent. Therefore the Republican Party is left wing, not just because it has an America first agenda, but also because it recognizes, and caters to collectivist groups such as the ‘moral majority’ and the evangelical right. The problem with your argument is that humans have, throughout history, moved into collectivist groups out of their own volition. The nation is not a new creation. It has existed throughout history and is based on a notion of shared myths, history, tradition, sense of destiny etc.
“Therefore, I don’t agree with your definition of right (nationalists) and left (global). The only difference between these two is the nature of the identity of their collective.”
Right. Perhaps you will point me out to a nation without a collective national identity. The idea of the nation itself is linked closely to identity. By your logic, everyone is inherently leftist.
“”Right’, to me, as a definition, focuses on the freedoms of the individual, and the governance in such a society is there to enable such freedom – a freedom that exists when it does not infringe on others. “
What it is to ‘you’ is your own problem. That doesn’t change the fact that you are taking the economic argument of free market and applying it to human beings with the caveat that other humans shouldn’t be affected adversely. A sort of vague revision of the social contract. This is a bizarre angle to take because even the Social Contractarians, on whose theoretical foundation you are building your argument, would admit that human beings never existed as individuals in and that the state of nature never existed. Humans have always existed in collectives (tribes religions etc) with a strong sense of collective identity. Indeed all nations are collectives. That does not mean that all nations have a collectivist approach towards economics. These are two different things.
“No such thing, in my view, as a ‘communist anarchist’.”
Of course not. No one ever accused you of being a political theorist, or, indeed, marginally versed in political theory. After all, the whole world, and everything in it, is essentially left-wing according to you.
Heres a rudimentary definition that serves the purpose:
Anarchist communism advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers’ councils and/or a gift economy through which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.
I would suggest you go about dismissing the argument after actually reading what has been written.
“I also don’t agree that an economic ‘right’ would support anarchy. Supporting the free market and no government isn’t an option because that would reduce the economy to ‘might makes right’. No human being, ever, has lived like this or even, if they thought for longer than one minute, would want such a situation.”
Therein lies the flaw in your argument. Political theory assumes certain conditions that are unlikely but theoretically possible. When Rousseau and Hobbes spoke of a ‘state of nature’, they were not writing real history, they were hypothesizing the existence of the individual outside of a group. They built their argument about the human tendency to set up governments on the basis of the irrationality of remaining in the state of nature with no government. For what its worth, the free market does, in a purely theoretical and realistically unlikely sense, suggest complete anarchy with no government presence at all. No regulation etc. I find it odd that you have no qualms about imposing the economic spectrums collectivist notion on the political spectrum, but dismiss the poster who argues that the extreme right wing would be anarchic when he does exactly the same thing as you – namely take the economic definition and apply it on the political definition.
“So, Nazi Germany was left, not right. All collective ideologies, because they focus on the collective, are left wing. Your attempt to change this to ‘well, if the collective is nationalistic, then it’s right’…sorry, I don’t agree with that. I think that’s a specious definition.”
Right. I assume I would be correct to extrapolate that all collectivist groups, including nations, and all the political parties within them, are left wing by virtue of accepting and dealing with collective groups, and in some cases creating them. Explain that to the Republican Party and the “Red States”. If my definition is specious, your definition is outright dishonest.
“The real difference is that focus on the collective versus the individual. And no society has no government.”
Next you will be arguing that the ‘Moral Majority’ is actually left wing because it adopted a collective identity. Not to mention the fact that America is now left-wing by virtue of being, well, full of Americans.
The problem with your argument is that it refuses to acknowledge the fact that humans are collectivist by nature insofar and that the left and right are defined with relation to the continuing existence of the nation, not to the theoretical state of nature in which individuals are nothing more than individuals. To argue that the nation is left wing is to make everything within it inherently left wing. That is simply not the case. Left and right exist within the nation, and, in the political sense, these the left and the right use the nation as their reference point. In the economic sense, it becomes about the individual against the collective group, but in the political sense, left and right are defined using the nation, not the individual. If we define it your way, there cannot be a right wing, because the nation is a collective of individuals and therefore everyone within it is inherently leftist. You are arguing for a theoretical social contract state devoid of any sense of nationhood, which to be quite honest, has never existed. I don’t know how well I have expressed myself but I trust that I have gotten my argument across.
Now, note here, uh huh, that I’m not going to attack the totality of your argument above, as I think you do make good points regarding the post you address, namely that he did choose the “collective” battleground, so in that sense you’ve shown that his definition is lacking. Since you’ve had to adopt some of his assumptions to show the faulty logic underneath them, my critiques might not apply to you (I personally hate it when people ascribe the assumptions of others I argue with to me in an attempt to undermine broader points being made).
“You are just rehashing the old argument that multiculturalism is inherently racist because it forces a collective identity onto a group. However, this criticism fails to acknowledge the possibility of the collective identity existing before the multiculturalist imposes it on a group.”
Well, naturally, a group must have an identity, otherwise it cannot be identified as a group to begin with. The better argument is that multiculturalism is inherently racist because if forces a collective identity onto an individual. Thus, because you were born white, you are x, you are responsible for y, and you get z. This differs from, say, the Moral Majority, in that it is because you choose to be a member of the Moral Majority, you are x, you are responsible for y, and you get z. Collective identities do exist, the debate is on whether the individual is a member because they will it.
This is why multiculturalism is inherently racist, as the assumption is that individuals are defined by their ethnic identities. If they were not tied to them, if identity was a choice, the moral argument against assimilation would be blunted. Now, nationalism is the other side of the coin, but it should be noted that you have been using it incorrectly here. A nation is defined as a land that is tied to a specific people. There is a strong element of ethnic identity in the term “nation.” The Balkans are rife with nations and nationalist movements, Zionism is a nationalist movement. Macedonia does not exist for those who are not of Macedonian heritage. Albania does not exist to serve any other interests than Albanians. Indeed, Israel exists only for Jews. Now, that does not mean that you cannot become a citizen of these countries. It means that, if you do so, you do because those countries believe allowing you to reside there helps their people. Additionally, you do not gain the identity of those people simply by having citizenship. You have to marry in, you have to convert, and even then, the identity might not go to you, but to your children instead.
This is fundamentally different than patriotism, which is putting your state before others, as the patriot’s group is not closed to those who share the same history. Sharing the same seal on a passport is enough. You do not act because you share the same past, but because you share the same future. Again, there is a difference of choice here. You can choose to live in a particular state and give your allegiance to it. You can choose citizenship. You cannot, however, choose to be a member of a nation. There is a debate over whether there is such a thing as a national identity for countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, simply because the nature of these states as countries of immigration means that there is no shared history. Instead, identity has to be forged on the basis of something else, often ideals.
“The problem with your argument is that it refuses to acknowledge the fact that humans are collectivist by nature”
Humans are not collectivist by nature. They are social by nature. Just because we seek out groups does not mean that we are driven to be wholly subsumed into the group, which is what collectivism is.
uh huh – please don’t use a fallacious tactic of rebutting my argument that the left perspective focuses on the group/collective – by diverting that analysis to the issue of multiculturalism.
We weren’t talking about the political strategy of multiculturalism, which locks immigrant popoulations into separate ‘voter blocs’. That’s a completely different issue than the left and right perspective on societal structure.
I also disagree that ‘in the world, everyone is defined in nationalist terms’. My ultimate identity is based on my being a member of a particular species, homo sapiens. My societal identity is defined by my profession which is international; and by my national citizenship because that description defines my legal ability to travel, my legal requirements of contributing financially to the collective (the nation), etc.
I disagree with your separation of the political and economic structures, with regard to the left and right. When you tell me that my perspective is ‘dishonest’, I think you need to provide some pretty good proof! Otherwise, you are moving, again, into a fallacious tactic of debate.
You state: “You argue that left wingers are collectivist. That is the economic definition.”
ET: No- this is what YOU believe. I disagree. You haven’t provided any data or analysis for your belief.
Uh Huh: “Therefore, you argue, nationalists are leftist because they focus on a collective national identity. A remarkable piece of obfuscation on your part, because what you effectively do is create a world of distinct nation states which, by virtue of having collective national identities, are inherently leftist.”
ET: Nope. I didn’t say the above. Your error is to merge the ‘nation-state’, which is a political, economic and societal organization of a population …with a cognitive belief. The two are not the same.
The cognitive belief of nationalism declares that the ONLY members of this nation-state are specially identified members. You don’t seem to understand the difference.
As for your statement that I agreed with you on the nature of the economic and political structure, since you can’t remember what name you posted under, you might also not remember the actual statement and its context. I continue to disagree with your current separation of the two.
Again, your error is to merge the belief in citizenship in a nation with a definition of valid membership in that nation. Being American as a citizen does not also mean defining that citizenship in closed terms (gender, race, ethnicity, etc).
The fascist nationalists who define membership in the society by closed terms (race, ethnicity etc) are of the left perspective because they focus on the identity of the collective; the collective ideology.
Same with communist socialists; they focus on the actions of the collective, though they are not always interested in the ethnic make-up of the population, just in that population’s submission to a collective ideology.
The nation-state IS relatively recent, emerging in the 12th, 13th c. Tribes are not nation-states.
As for your ad hominem attempt to denigrate my argument by ‘no-one has ever accused you of being a political theorist’ etc, ..this is not an argument to validate your point of view, but childish denigration.
Of course all humans exist, and have always existed within a collective! As I’ve explained before, our particular species is in the unique situation where our knowledge base is not stored genetically, but socially. Therefore, we can only live within our knowledge base; within a society. There’s no such thing as a ‘state of nature’ for our species…if by that you mean, living independently. Where would you come up with such an idea?
Nope, I disagree with the very notion of anarchist communism. It’s just another utopian hypothesis. Your definition would operationally fall apart in any population larger than about 30 members. Indeed, your definition fits exactly the so-called ‘earliest communism’, that of the most basic hunting and gathering bands.
But they can’t exist in this mode of organization in larger groups than 30. Any larger population, and you require hierachies of authority, based on accumulated knowledge, based on different time periods (use it now vs save for later use), and of course, direct democracy is impossible in large populations. As well, in a larger population, you require vertical transmission of authority and capital (which can include land rights, cattle, seed, etc).
Rousseau and Hobbes’ state of nature were quite different from each other, and as you say, were total fictions in both cases.There is no such thing in our species, as living outside of a societal structure. That’s why we, alone of all species, have the capacity for symbolic communication.
The free market is not anarchy but operates, as do all our societal systems, WITHIN a society. That means, within the laws and regulations that we, as a people, have devloped.
The free market, however, functions according to the laws that we, the people, have agreed to. Not to an authoritarian government. ‘Free’ doesn’t mean ‘anarchy’ which is really chaos, not freedom. (See Aristotle for the difference between freedom and chaos). The left inserts that authoritarian elite who ‘know what’s best for everyone’. The right respects the individual and acknowledges that the individuals, together, debate and make the rules.
Again, your error is to ignore that our species is, by its biological nature, social. That means that the individual can exist only within a societal organization. BUT, this doesn’t mean the disappearance of the individual, for ‘societies don’t think’. Only the individual thinks.
The left rejects reason, individual freedom to think and debate, and privileges the group. This is, politically and economically, fascism and communism.
The right accepts and promotes reason, individual freedom to think and debate, and privileges the individual, who, nevertheless, lives within a group. This is politically and economically, democracy and capitalism.
What does this mean? It means that the individual cannot ‘do what he wants’, but lives within the constraints and rules that his societal group has developed. If he doesn’t like them, then, he can try to persuade the other people to change them.
ET, I have read many of your responses, but this is the weakest by a fair margin.
“My ultimate identity is based on my being a member of a particular species, homo sapiens. My societal identity is defined by my profession which is international; and by my national citizenship because that description defines my legal ability to travel, my legal requirements of contributing financially to the collective (the nation), etc.”
Pointless obfuscation. The issue here is not about how you define yourself – you could call yourself a cartoon character for all we care. The point is that your interaction with others is subject to the nation you belong to. No matter which court of law you enter in any country, the first thing the court will demand to know is your citizenship. You can claim to be a Homo Sapien, but as far as Canada and the rest of the world are concerned, you are a Canadian citizen.
“No- this is what YOU believe. I disagree. You haven’t provided any data or analysis for your belief.”
Oh yes, the old ET tactic. You won’t do the research yourself. No. That would be too much effort. Why not make me sit here and waste my time summarizing the background of a topic that you know nothing about, but insist on commenting on. Sorry, ET, do your own research. Provide me on data with how I am wrong, and I will oblige and prove how I am right. You’re getting intellectually lay these days.
“Your error is to merge the ‘nation-state’, which is a political, economic and societal organization of a population …with a cognitive belief. The two are not the same.”
The nation is based on cognitive belieft. The state is the political economic and societal organiation which derives its legitimacy from the nation. I never said the two are the same.
“Again, your error is to merge the belief in citizenship in a nation with a definition of valid membership in that nation. Being American as a citizen does not also mean defining that citizenship in closed terms (gender, race, ethnicity, etc).”
This gets better and better. Why do you insist on such deliberate obfuscation? Being American is automatically a closed term. Whether you want to create more divisions within it is a separate issue, but ‘American’ is as exclusive an identity as the rest. Many Canadians on this board, who wish they were American, know that already. WIthin America you have the unpatriotic democrats and the patriotic Republicans. What is that all about?
“this is not an argument to validate your point of view, but childish denigration.”
Yes, well at least you have matured out of this kind of childish denigration over the years (not that you haven’t engaged in your own share of it on this board) Some day I may join you.
“The fascist nationalists who define membership in the society by closed terms (race, ethnicity etc) are of the left perspective because they focus on the identity of the collective; the collective ideology.”
Let me get this straight. Facist Nationalists are leftist because they define membership in the society in “closed” terms. The natural consequence of this argument is that ALL nationalists are leftist because they define membership in society on the basis of closed terms – place of birth being the most obvious one. Accordingly, the nationalist ideology is leftist. Which leads us to the assumption that the nation itself is a leftist creation. The shared myths and sense of destiny quite easily mould into what you call a collectivist ideology. Now if we work with this assumption, then there can be no left and right, because there are only varying degrees of left. The obfuscation you engage in points at several underdeveloped arguments on your part, but it fails to address the issue of the nation being, at heart, a collective.
“Being American as a citizen does not also mean defining that citizenship in closed terms (gender, race, ethnicity, etc).”
In the broad case of those who identify themselves as ‘Homo Sapiens’, including yourself, the term ‘American’ is itself a closed term, as is any other nationality. And it is your nationality that determines the extent of your interaction with other Homo Sapiens, both home and abroad.
“Therefore, we can only live within our knowledge base; within a society. There’s no such thing as a ‘state of nature’ for our species…if by that you mean, living independently. Where would you come up with such an idea?”
Huh? I came up with that idea from precisely the same place that you came up with the idea from when you said the following:
“Rousseau and Hobbes’ state of nature were quite different from each other, and as you say, were total fictions in both cases”
“The nation-state IS relatively recent, emerging in the 12th, 13th c. Tribes are not nation-states.”
And in one deft go, you have managed to end the debate between the ethno-symbolist school of thought, primordialist school of thought and the modernist school of though. All three schools have different views on this issue. The primordialists and ethno-symbolists dont argue that Tribes are nation-states. They do argue that Tribes are at the very least pre-cursors to nations, though most generally agree that the traits of a nation and tribes are identical (shared myths, history, sense of destiny). The modernist argument that you are ostensibly using, sees the nation-state as 17th-18th century development (common language and common culture driven by the needs of a changing economy etc). Too much theory. Read up on it on your own time.
And what is with the magic number of 30. You could have anarchic communism simply by virtue of having many “volunatary associations” that numebr less than 30 (if we stick to your number), though I am sure it could be larger. Its still anarchic communism, not matter how large or small the group is. Whether you agree or disagree with it is, well, your prerogative. But by disagreeing you are not disproving it. Counter Kropotkin’s arguments if you want to disprove it. I am sure you have better things to do than that.
I will leave you with some food for thought:
You state:
“The left rejects reason, individual freedom to think and debate, and privileges the group. This is, politically and economically, fascism and communism.
The right accepts and promotes reason, individual freedom to think and debate, and privileges the individual, who, nevertheless, lives within a group. This is politically and economically, democracy and capitalism.”
Valid points both. But there is some inconsistency. As you say, “The right accepts and promotes reason, individual freedom to think and debate, and privileges the individual, who, nevertheless, lives within a group.”
The problem with your argument is that this group is fundamentally exclusive. It is based on some form of collective identity according to which it behaves. Citizenship in a group is inherently limited. Using your terms, nationality becomes a ‘closed’ term.
The left, you say, relies on closed terms. The right believes in the individual. It stands to reason that the right would therefore eschew the leftist ‘closed’ terms such as citizenship. You try to soften this point by saying that living in groups is natural. But that doesn’t address the core problem of these groupings being inherently exclusive ( a North Korean cannot vote in America), which, by virtue of being based on a closed term (nationality), makes the group inherently leftist.
I have argued that left and right need to be defined relative to the nation, and you have proved my point.
“The MSM and the left, (often the same thing) have placed many parties and persons on the ‘Right’ that have no business being there.”
Yes, but that’s precisely why the debate about terminology is not moot. It’s clear that the MSM and the left don’t consider the point they are making when they refer to the BNP as “far-right” to be moot.
Sorry EBD, I agree entirely with your comment regarding the MSN and the left. I should have clarified that I was refering to this terminology debate in this comments thread, not the debate as a whole.